Please Consider Just Saying No To Cops

Addendum

You are correct if you're thinking that addendums are supposed to come at the end of a document, rather than the beginning. I'm not big on rules.

I'm writing this a few months after I first posted this article, because I am reporting that I had the occasion, while riding my bike in the middle of the night, to follow some of the advice I gave below. I wasn't a champion or anything. I'd give me a C grade for my execution. That said, it still served me well.

I'm a night owl. I pretty much always have been. Left to my own devices, I go to sleep at around sunrise. I'm living in a fairly rural area. The nearest town has two traffic signals. It's several miles away.

My first (and main) meal, as of late, usually comes at 9 or 10 pm, after having gotten up in the afternoon and having gone to a nearby park, where my neighborhood association recently erected a basketball court, allowing me to opportunity to dedicate an hour or two each day to practice my ability to trick young, fit athletic individuals into believing that I (a fat, aging guy dreadfully close to the 60 year mark, in this incarnation) am a good basketball player.

After a shower and a change of clothes I like to ride my bike into town to get more exercise as well as to eat, and also to take in some entertainment. I do the latter by packing my laptop computer into my backpack that I take with me whenever I take my bike anywhere. The backpack also contains spare tubes, tools and a bicycle air pump, so that I won't be forced to walk my bike back several miles if I ever run over something a get a flat.1) It's a military duffel bag, so I can hold a lot of groceries and other supplies that I may pick up in town.

Cops are likely to wonder what you have in your bag if they see you out and about late at night and after midnight. Between 10 and 15 years ago I was pulled over on a bike by 2 cops in a large city. They asked to search my bag because of robberies they told me had been happening.

I thought that if I refused, they might try to make some other type of trouble. For instance, at that time, I had not given up alcohol, and while I wasn't drunk, I had some alcohol in my system. Cops sometimes arrest people on bikes for DUI, which is pretty stupid, since some people are responsible enough to take their bikes, instead of their cars, when they go to the local pub.

At that time, I hadn't seen the various YouTube videos about the importance of saying no to cops, and I didn't want to piss the cops off, so I consented to the search. As I had promised them, there was no contraband, so after several minutes of the invasion of my privacy, on the sidewalk of a main street, I was allowed to go on my way. It was no fun and I would have preferred to have avoided it.

So, flash forward to about a week ago. I had been in town at a restaurant that closed at midnight. They have free wifi, that does not turn off when they close. They have an outside patio that they allow customers to linger, even after they close. So I used my computer to stream some entertainment on Netflix. When the battery died, I pulled out my Android phone and continued streaming.

It was about 2 AM as I was heading home, when a deputy sheriff cruised by me, going in the opposite direction. Then he pull a U turn, drove by me, pulled up ahead of me into a parking lot. He got out and waited for me to catch up to him.

I took my ear buds out as I approached. He asked if he could talk to me as I stopped my bike. The very first words out of my mouth were, “Am I being detained?”

For that, I get an A, but I didn't stick to the script.

He said he wasn't detaining me, and that he only wanted to talk to me. He asked if I knew anything about break-ins that had been occurring.

What I should have said was, “No, I can't help you, but since I”m not being detained, I presume that I'm free to go.“ What I did say was, “No, I don't know anything about them.”

He asked again about break-ins and if maybe I heard anybody talking about them. He asked if I lived around the area as well. I told him I did and repeated that I had no information.

I wish I had not even said I lived in the area. The truth is, it was none of his business. He needs to have “reasonable articulable suspicion” that I had committed a crime to detain me and try to pump me for incriminating statements. In my opinion he did not have the legal definition of the kind of suspicion required to justify a detention, and if anything, he was profiling me for being on a bicycle carrying a backpack that I use since my bike didn't come with a trunk. 2)

Cops can be suspicious of anyone, but that is not the same as meeting the level of reasonable suspicion to grant them the right to detain them. It's also silly to think that a person in a car is less likely to commit break-ins than a person a bike. If anything, people driving cars are more suspicious, since they can get away better and hold a lot more stolen goods.

To arrest you, they need to go beyond having reasonable suspicion, to having probable cause. This deputy had neither, but I was concerned he was going to arrest me when I would have refused to tell him my address. I was mad at myself for telling him I lived around there. By answering that question, I was setting him up to follow it up with a question about my exact address.

I purposely do not carry ID. I usually don't even have my bank card on me. I take enough out to use cash for a while, then when I'm low, I'll bring the card with me only then, so I can withdraw more cash. 3)

I was ready to explain to the deputy that he did not have the right to know where I live. 4) I was ready to tell him I do not ever consent to any searches whatsoever.

I knew I needed to get back on track, following the advice I laid out in this article. I asked a second time if I was being detained. For the second time, he said no. I was going to quickly follow it up this time with what I should have said the first time… “Then am I free to go?,” but he beat me to it.

“You're free to go. I was just hoping to get some information from you,” he said.

“OK,” I relied. “Thank you. Then I'm going to finish my ride and get home.”

From here on out, I won't be so talkative. It was a good, practical lesson for me. As you will read below, you should not worry about making cops more suspicious by telling them you do not answer questions without your attorney present.

I have links to some videos later on, that I hope you will watch, including one by a police detective, talking to a class of law students, who agrees with their professor to never speak to police. Before I close this reverse addendum, I'm going to lay a few more links on you.

This one shows a cop screaming instructions to a guy, ironically shouting like a mad man, “I asked you nicely,” over and over. He screams at him to give him his backpack. The onlooker doing to video asks the guy, “Are you consenting to a search,” as the cop is rifling through his bag. The guy says no, at which point, the cop puts the bag down.n

What that video shows is that the cop was using the guy's action of complying with his order to give him the backpack as complied consent, even though he was screaming at him to give it to him and even though people are taught that you can get arrested for not complying with the orders of a cop. Saying the words, “I do not consent to any searches,” can be almost like magic.

People who post these types of videos often tell of the importance of letting the cop know she is being videoed. They often ask the cop their name and badge number.

This one made me laugh. I don't feel the need to be rude to cops. In fact, I really do have respect for uniformed officers, generally speaking, as I do for military members and veterans. I'm not afraid to admit that as I was biking away the other night, I thanked the deputy for his good work and told him, “God bless you.” That said, I still couldn't help but laugh at this video, ” How To Stop An Unlawful Search In 7 Seconds!“ (Actually, it's a 6 second video, but the poster admitted it was the last several seconds of a half minute interaction.)

In this video a cop pulls over a driver for speeding, and asks the passenger for his ID as well as the driver. The passenger refuses on legal grounds since he's not driving.

The first 6 minutes and the last minute of this video are good examples of how to handle yourself. I really love the last minute. A cop approaches a guy sitting in his car. The cop says someone called in a suspicious vehicle, the vehicle he is in. The cops asks for ID and the guy says he doesn't have to show it unless the cop suspects him of committing a crime.

I don't know about you, but to me, that takes brass balls to just come out and say it like that. I want a pair of those. The cop reiterates that a call was made about the vehicle being suspicious. The guy asks where the crime is. He then says that he would like to go. The cop asks, “You want to go?” The guy reiterates yes, and adds that the cop can't detain him unless he suspects him of committing a crime. The cop tells him he can go.

Obviously, nothing guarantees your safety from a bad cop, but overall, the more you show you know your rights, the more a cop will usually be aware you are likely to seek legal redress, civil & criminal, for any abuse of power. By flexing your rights early in the interaction, you are likely to have it end early.

If you give ground, then one thing can lead to another and another, and horrible outcomes that were otherwise avoidable may take place. The fact is, horrible things do happen at the hands of law enforcement officers that should never happen. Here is a case where a guy got arrested for suspicion of DUI, and ended up being placed in solitary confinement, “lost” in the system for 2 years. 5)

Not withstanding a possible exception from an intuitive (psychic) insight, I believe that in 99.99999999 percent of the cases of people interacting with law enforcement in the United States (and many other nations), they will be better served by just saying no to cops.

Just Say No

If you are old enough, you remember the wife of President Reagan, Ms. Nancy Reagan's anti drug campaign slogan, designed especially for kids, to help them prevent a life of drug abuse: “Just Say No To Drugs.”

It was short. It was simple. It cut to the chase. Unfortunately there were a lot of intrinsic problems with it. It was short sighted. It was hypocritical.6) It just didn't work.

[Pictured Above: Florida Senator Marco Rubio demonstrates a perfect judo Okuri Ashi Barai (Sliding Foot Sweep) on former First Lady Nancy Reagan. Notice how the Senator's balance was never in jeopardy, yet he was able to use Mrs. Reagan's own aggression against herself, and easily deposit her onto the mat without sustaining injury to himself or his expensive suit.]

We're All Like 3 Year Olds

[Making a joke of the tumble of the frail, 90 year old Mrs. Reagan shows the dignity of a 3 year old, I know! ...But she wasn't injured, and it reinforces the point I'm about to make about people having a 3 year old child inside them.]

What I'm about to say applies to humans; not just adolescent humans. The reason that, Just Say No, campaigns don't work is that, at some level of our consciousness, there is a rebellious part of us that is prone to do the opposite of what we are ordered to do. If we are simply commanded to do something, without understanding the deeper reasons, let alone the potential consequences of not fulfilling the command – given enough opportunity, we will seize upon the moment to disobey the command.

Don't Try This At Home

If you have a 3 year old living with you, you could could undoubtedly discover the truth of the following scenario, but I implore you not to do so. It is for illustration purposes only:

If you had a bag of small beans resting on an area the toddler could readily see and access, you would start by drawing her attention to the beans. Then you would tell her, “These are beans. A lot of little girls and boys get in trouble by taking these beans and stuffing them up their noses. They think it's cool to do, especially when they think mommy and daddy won't find out. They like to do things like that behind mommy and daddy's backs.”

“Now, I'm going to walk out of this room. I will not be seeing what you are doing, but whatever you do, do not even think about putting a bunch of beans up your nose. Don't try to see how many beans you can fit in your nose. When you have play dates with friends, don't look for where mommy and daddy keep the beans, in that cabinet over there, and then have a contest to see who can stuff the most beans up their nose.”

(Of course, she will promise not to ever stick beans up her nose, but you will continue, nonetheless…)

“I don't care if you have friends who are stuffing beans up their noses. I don't care if they tell you that their mommies and daddies say it's OK. Don't ever stuff beans up your nose.”

You would then walk out of the room to another room where you have a monitor from a nanny cam, so you can see what your young one does. It would not be surprising in the least if she starts putting beans up her nose within minutes of your departure.

If she manages to resist the urge, the chances are overwhelming she will do it at some point in the not too distant future, especially if you keep telling her over and over to never do it. Although it's the subject for another conversation, that, in a nutshell, explains the evidence that indicates that in many instances sexual abstinence programs leads to sexual experimentation among adolescents.7) There is even a lot of evidence that the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, taught by police, dramatically increases drug use among school children.8)9)10)11)

This also helps to explain the dramatic spike in young people who are confused about their sexuality. Children are getting ideas put into their head that despite their biological sexual organs, they can be the other gender if they so choose. In the name of being liberally tolerant and trying to reduce bullying, kids, including young children are basically being trained to have gender identify issues. Like the DARE program, good intentions do not always bring about the hoped for results.12)

There are even programs where first grade children and younger are taught sexual mechanics and the difference between heterosexual logistics and homosexual ones. Dolls are used. I suppose the people dong the teaching think it's not ridiculously out of place to be teaching such things to such young children because the dolls are usually animals – hence, it's “only” a toy kangaroo penis being inserted into a toy kangaroo rectum, but in actuality, that hardly matters. Moreover, there are reports indicating plans to switch to anatomically correct human dolls, once the curriculum with animal dolls gains wider acceptance. That is the nature of these types of things. Start out with one level that is bad enough, then get people used to it and take it to even more mind bending levels.

As Arlo Guthrie Said, But That's Not What I"m Here To Tell You About

This introduction to the concept of choosing to say no to police, reminds me of Arlo Guthrie's story and song, Alice's Restaurant.13) He gets about half way through the 19 minute story – having told how he got arrested for littering, and the subsequent trial leading to a fine and restitution of having to pick up the garbage he and his friends had dumped of the side of a small cliff after discovering the dump was closed for Thanksgiving – and then announces, “But that's not what I'm here to tell you about.”14)

Similarly, everything you've read so far came about as a primer to explain the title I chose for this piece. I have yet to actually cover any reasons why you might wish to consider saying no to cops. Those reasons are just around the bend. I promise.

The Reason For The Title

The title to this post is, Please Consider Just Saying No To Cops, in an effort to deal with the 3 year old that lives in everybody. The, “please,” is in an effort to mitigate rebellion, since it's a request more than a command. The, “consider,” further reduces the direct order aspect of it all. See? It's just a suggestion, so that your 3-year-old-inner-brat doesn't have to take over your something-something-year-old-outer-adult.

Phew. I'm glad we've taken care of that.

Officer Not So Much Friendly

When I was a kid, my friends and I were raised to believe that there was no question that police were our friends. They were there to help. I was instructed, if I ever got lost, or if I were ever threatened, I could go to any uniformed law enforcement officer and I would always be taken care of and made safe. With the passage of time, a changing police culture and the advent of nearly ubiquitous video surveillance that has shown countless unnecessary police beatings, almost all of which they are not only not punished for, but often commended by their superiors for, as an adult, I am now concerned for my safety and my liberty in the presences of LEOs (law enforcement officers.)

A lot has changed since I was a kid. Primarily, the criminal cabal hellbent on total global domination15) has become many times over more powerful than it was fifty years ago. This cabal views the masses of humanity as the enemy. We are their peasants, “useless eaters.”16) There are too many of us, and they not only don't care about us, our only purpose, as far as they are concerned is to be used to ensure that they have all the wealth and freedom.

They want everybody to be owned by the company store, if you will, and to not know the joy of liberty and freedom. They are more in control of the United States than any other country, although they are largely in control of most countries, and have powerful influence, via the banking system and a variety of other institutions and processes in every country.

More People Imprisoned In USA Than China And India

Please think about this statistic. There are more people in jails and prisons in the United States than there are in China and India. Don't misperceive that statement.17) That is not saying there are more folks behind bars in the USA than China or more than India. No, that is to say, China and India combined have few prisoners than the Untied States. Think about that.

Both those countries have about 1.2 billion people, each. If my high school trigonometry still serves me, that's damn near 2.4 billion18) The population of the United States is about 320,000, yet the USA has more people locked up than both India and China combined. That's enough to take your breath away, isn't it?

For every one person locked up in both China and India, there are about 8 people locked up in the United States. There means, on average, the US locks up 16 times as many people than either of those gargantuanly populated nations. And China, if you need to be reminded, is a communist country run by a brutal dictatorial system. Speaking of brutal dictator run countries, North Korea doesn't come close to matching the per capita rate of incarceration as the United States.

Some Truth About Reagan, For Once

Please understand, this writer is neither a supporter or Democrats or Republicans. We are so brainwashed in partisan politics that if a criticism of Repugnantan president is stated, readers automatically assume the writer is Demoncrat, and vice-versa. My head shakes in wonder any time anyone mentions any, even semi modern American president in reverential terms.
Conservatives worship Ronald Reagan for instance, when his real track record, his actual legacy, is anything but conservative ideology. His words, like virtually all politicians, were incredibly different from his actions.

So much of what is wrong in the USA today, that is being used by the elite cabal that is ever approaching their goal of an overt one world government (as opposed to the covert shadow global government we already are dealing with), is a result of the policies of the Reagan administration. This is not to say that any subsequent President ever did anything to dismantle the wrongs of Mr.Reagan. Indeed, they each took up where their predecessor left off.

The Privatization Of The United States Of America

The privatization of the government started, in earnest, with Ronald Reagan. It's one thing to say that smaller government is better than larger government, but it's not doing the citizens any favors to transfer the power of the government to large corporations, giving them taxpayer money which enlarges their profits and gives them power over the people that was formerly the domain of the government.

If there are any institutions less inclined to be on the side of the people than the government, it has to be large corporations. Indeed, part of the government's job should be to keep them from infringing upon the rights of the people. The trend of selling, leasing and even giving away federal land to huge corporations became all the rage during the Reagan era.
It may have started with corporations based in the United States, which would have been bad enough, but the thing about large companies is they are often (if not usually) multinational. The trend became so accepted that during the Bush 43 administration, Junior wanted to lease all the ports of entry in the United States to an Arab company, just 4 and a half years after telling us that 91119) was perpetrated by Arabs.

Privatized Prisons

Prisons started becoming privatized under Reagan and the trend has never stopped since then. It's hard to put into words the foolhardiness of the idea that because the federal government has a bad track record of something, large corporations are automatically going to be many times superior when given the same task. Consider all the rampant pollution large corporations have given the world, and that, to whatever degree they have been reigned in, has been due to government regulation.

Reagan decided that corporations can handle everything, including the running of prisons, better than the government, so they were allowed to take over a number of facilities. Business is run by the sole principle of increasing profits, so it should come as no surprise to learn that standards and safety went down, in efforts to make the bottom line go up.

Among many issues, for profit prisons virtually always have a lot fewer guards, per capita of inmate population, than government run prisons. This creates a system that allows for more abuse among the inmates of other inmates, not to mention, among the guards themselves, who have fewer superiors to answer to. Moreover, the private prison system also sees more corruption from the prison administrations, in terms of seeking government reimbursement for services not ever rendered to the prisoners, etc., etc.20)

The Double Standard

For profit prisons can have contracts which stipulate that they will not house prisoners with a history of chronic health problems. After all, they are all about keeping their costs down. That is the typical type of double standard that anti government people like to use when singing the praise of private institutions of any kind.

Actually, coming from this writer, a staunch supporter of small government, that might seem like a curious perspective, but to me, it's only fair, as well as logical. It's ridiculous to compare apples to oranges as if they are both the same. I'm always saying that it's impossible to not have biases, but that doesn't mean we have to let our biases corrupt our ability to think clearly. Just because I don't like big government, that doesn't mean I have to be blind to unfair double standards when they happen to go against government institutions.

For instance, private schools get to pick and choose their students. They don't accept students with a known troubled history, and they quickly kick out any students who become problematic. That puts them in a distinct advantage that is hard to overstate. There are mandates for government institutions to serve everybody, which precludes the luxury to cherry pick their clients, students and prisoners.

Slave Labor

Although, not started by private prisons, they certainly picked up on the concept that a few government run prisons had experimented with, in which prisoners were, more or less, forced into slave labor. In turn, their success with the program inspired government prisons to practice the model in a more widespread manor, although it is still much more prevalent in the for profit prisons.

Today, prisons are often factories, making goods that are sold on the private market. Prisoners might get a few pennies per hour that is credited to their canteen accounts. For all intents and purposes, it gives the prisons free labor. This has a bad effect on the all the factories that are not run from prison sites, because it lowers the price of their goods, since the prison factories have so much wiggle room to undercut them. That, in turn, lowers the wages of non incarcerated factory workers all across the United States.

The War On Drugs

Although it was Richard Nixon who first spoke of, the war on drugs, it was Ronald Reagan who used that concept to change the law enforcement landscape to chop the Bill of Rights into little pieces. His successors have run with the program ever since. Indeed, the reaction to 911 has been to use the, “war of terror,” to obliterate most of the vestiges of any civil liberties that Reagan and succeeding President's hadn't killed off with the war on drugs.

Reagan's “zero tolerance” laws saw the dramatic increase of the prison population in the United States that has continued long since the Bedtime For Bonzo actor left the White House.21) This, of course, has worked very well for the for profit prison system. The more “clients” forced into their prisons, the more tax payer money they get and the more free factory labor, as well. These companies often get the government to agree to contracts that guarantee completely filled prisons. It then becomes the governments responsibility to ensure that enough people are being brought into the system so that the contracts can be fulfilled. (Are you starting to understand the point of this article, yet?)

Lobbying For Increased Incarceration

The privatized prison industry has becomes one of the major lobbying groups pushing for laws that continue to increase penalties for anything and everything. They spend untold millions of dollars lobbying against relaxation of drug laws and any form of legalization or decriminalization of marijuana.

The Reality Of Mandatory Minimum Drug Possession Sentencing

During the Reagan administration, laws were enacted that circumvented judges ability to sentence convicted criminals. Mandatory minimums were created that forced people with minor drug possession charges to spend many years in prison. Often, to make room for these mandatory minimum drug possession prisoners, heinous, violent thugs, rapists and murderers were released early.

Unfortunately, a lot of decent people whose only crime was either liking or being addicted to a type of recreational drug other than the ones that society say are OK to like or be addicted to, end up being affected in such a massively negative way while in prison, by the time they leave they are not the same people they were when they entered. They often end up becoming true criminal menaces to society, only because they were sentenced to prison when it really served nobody's interest except the people who gain profits (and their livelihoods) on housing prisoners.

Militarization Of The Police

Let's not forget, Reagan's drug war started the trend of the militarization of local police and the breakdown of private property rights. Property owned by people convicted of drug law violations suddenly became fair game for “legal” confiscation. Legal, that is, as in the way the Nazis legally killed people they didn't like.

Drug confiscation laws led to today's cash confiscation shake downs where cops pull over people who are traveling, and look for large sums of money so they can confiscate it on the basis of mere suspicion, despite the fact that it's not illegal to carry cash. The money conveniently goes to the police agency that confiscated it. Gee there's nothing suspicious about that set up at all, eh?22)

Fast Forward From The Reagan Era To Today

While the criminal cabal was largely in control of the US and the world during the Reagan days, it didn't have nearly the grasp it has today. These people can't stand liberty, freedom or self sufficiency. They want everybody dependent upon their system, which will allow them a hand to mouth, week to week kind of existence.

They want more people in prison than ever before. They especially want people who are not likely to go along with their program to be incarcerated, which explains why they have focused their efforts on imprisoning so many US Americans. The USA, even has dumbed down and brainwashed as we have allowed ourselves to be, still provides the greatest challenge to getting over the final hurdles to their goal of global dictatorship.

Today, it's not just drug possession that threatens you with incarceration. There are so many laws, including felony laws, on the books that virtually everyone is a criminal without even realizing it. (And remember, ignorance of the law of is no excuse, so just because it's impossible to know untold thousands, or tens of thousands, of ever changing laws, you have no excuse for it.)

Saying No To More Than Police

Police are not the only law enforcement agents. There are all kinds of bureaucrats who are enforcing what must be, all told, millions of laws (when you include all the states and add up all the government agencies rules that have the weight of law). Virtually every agency in the government has militarized SWAT teams ready, willing, able and chomping at the bit to overreact to any potential law you may be guilty of breaking.

In this day and age, the truth is that police, and many times, other bureaucrats, primary job assignment is to ensure that as many people as possible lose their freedom by being arrested, jailed and imprisoned. They are not your friends these days. The more people they get behind bars, the better they do in their careers. Their goals are 100% the opposite of your goal to remain free and happy.

There is nothing positive that can come from you speaking with these people. If you are approached and asked questions by them, tell them that on the advice of counsel (your lawyer) you are instructed to not to speak to them without your attorney present.

You Don't Have To Be Rude

You might think that you will get in more trouble for being perceived as rude, by taking such a stance, than if you just answered their questions. My advice would be to sincerely express that you have no rude intentions. I would even state the fact that I appreciate their service to the community, but that I simply don't speak with police outside of an attorney being present.

There might even be some instances where you might be inconvenienced by taking this tack. There might be a cop who will look for an excuse to arrest you because she doesn't like citizens who assert their few remaining civil rights, whereas, if you had answered a few questions, you might not have been arrested.

It's certainly your call to decide for yourself how you want to handle each encounter, but overall, there is much more to be gained following the advice you are reading, than there is to be lost. In virtually every case such a cop would arrest you simply for exercising your right to have an attorney present, you will find whatever bogus charge she held you on, to be quickly dropped.

If, on the other hand, you answer questions, you could inadvertently say something, that draws the cop's suspicion, specifically to the crime or case they are investigating. You may think that refusing to speak with them automatically draws their suspicion, but it's not going to do so nearly as much as saying something that actually does draw their suspicion. Never forget, everything you say can be used against you in the court that has the power to take your freedom away.

If you are refusing to speak with them when they approach you on the street, or wherever, they know you will refuse to speak with them if they take you in. If they don't believe they have enough evidence to hold you on at the moment, they realize it would waste their time to process you and do the paper work that is involved with taking you in for questioning or to arrest you.

Solving Cases Doesn't Mean Solving Cases

Maybe at some point, decades ago, law enforcement felt that solving cases meant actually finding out who did it and bringing the person to justice. These days, unfortunately, it means pinning the blame on somebody and trying to get a conviction, whether they are really sure the person did it or not.

What really woke me up to the way things have changed in this regarding was a report I saw on one of the TV news magazine shows, possibly 60 Minutes, quite a few years ago. Police got an innocent man whose daughter had been murdered, to confess to the crime.

They tag teamed him, keeping him awake for something like 36 hours. Withholding food and water. They got him to crack when they asked him if he ever had so much to drink that he didn't remember something that had happened.

When he said yes, they told him that is what happened in this instance. He said, “I don't know, maybe I did it.” From that point on, he was theirs, and when they asked him to give details of how he killed his daughter, he made stuff up.

Even though, a lot of his information was wrong, they still charged him. The prosecutor proved only too happy to run with all the bad work the cops did. He had no issue with the various types of torture the cops made the man endure, or with the faulty information he ended up confessing.

In the trial, the defense was able to play a few hours of the tape of the cops working the father other. Even though it was a mere fraction of all the hours he had to go through, it was enough for the jury to be disgusted with the prosecution and the cops. They acquitted the father.

How Did The Cops React?

You might think that the District Attorney and the police would have learned a lesson. You would be wrong. The only change that came about from the jury's acquittal was the cops changed their policy and no longer recorded their interviews with suspects, because state law mandated that the tapes were to be made available to the defense teams and could be used in court.

Imagine your daughter being murdered, and then imagine being falsely charged and having to deal with a lowlife team of cops and prosecutors who simply want to close the case and get credit for sending somebody away, regardless of the fact that they know in their heart of hearts you were innocent. This is the kind of thing that is happens all too frequently.

This man's first mistake was being willing to cooperate with the police. No doubt they told him they needed to question him to help them catch the culprit. Surely he would have found it difficult to say no to that. If he had, they would have said it casts suspicion upon him that they didn't even have before he said no.

They would ask him why, if he didn't have anything to hide, would he be reluctant to speak with them. They would tell him that would look so bad in court, a jury would convict him on that alone. Of course, that's not true. Most of what police will tell suspects in their interviews are blatant lies and tricks.

It's totally legal for them to lie to you. However, it's a crime to lie to them. You could even tell the truth, but the fact that they believe it's a lie, could then turn into a charge against you, that would have been avoided, simply by exercising your right to not speak to them.

Even police, if they are being honest, will tell you that it is never in your interest to speak with them. Watch the following two videos, number 1 and number 2, where a law professor gives a talk in front of a law class, saying exactly this. Then he is followed up by a police investigator who totally agrees with him.

No matter what bullshit the cops tell you or how much they try to scare you, stick to your guns. Repeat, “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully refuse to speak with you without my attorney present.” Then follow it up with, “Am I free to go?”

The Importance Of Asking, "Am I Free To Go?"

Many people have gotten arrested by sticking around and conversing with cops after the point in which they could have left. The extra conversation led to self incrimination, at least in the eyes of the cops. These people didn't realize there was a point in which the cops were not making them stay any longer.

There have been court cases where people tried to get the incriminating statements excluded from the state's evidence, based on the fact that they didn't realize they were free to leave. The courts have consistently upheld that it didn't matter and that there was nothing to stop them from having asked if they were free to leave.

In other words, cops are not required to tell you when you are free to leave and they will allow you to think you are not free to leave, so that you might volunteer some self incriminating statements. So be wise to this game, and learn to ask this question a lot. By doing so, you will know when to get out and the getting is good. Plus, it continues to signal to the cop that you are aware of certain legalities and you are not an easy mark for abuse and improprieties.

Become a parrot. Say it every time they ask you a question. Given enough time, they will get the message. If they do arrest you, in almost every circumstance, they were going to arrest you anyway, but you would have said something they could have used to make you look guilty.

If all they hear from you is, “Am I under arrest?, and, Am I being detained?, and, Am I free to leave?, and, I don't consent to any searches or examinations, and, I”m going to remain silent, and, I won't speak without my attorney present – then you will have said nothing they state can use against you. If they are going to convict you for something, at least you did not give them any help.

For instance, if a murder victim is someone you had fought with at work, admitting that would build their case against you. You've got to get the idea out of your head that these people are only interested in pinning the crime on the true culprit.

More times than not, they simply want to pin it on someone they can get a jury to convict. It is quite common for them to have several suspects with whom they do interviews and get to incriminate themselves. The person with the most incrimination and circumstantial evidence and lack of alibis, becomes the unlucky one, and the others are released. Don't count on not being the most unlucky of the crew. Don't give them anything to help their case.

In the rare instance when they arrest you simply because you refused to speak with them, feel good in the knowledge that you've proven to yourself how sick those bastards are and that you did not say anything they can twist to make you look guilty. Call your lawyer and expect to be released and have the charges dropped soon.

It's not just the cops

The district or state or federal attorney (the prosecutor) all too often plays by the same rules. If they can get somebody locked up, the case can be closed out and it's a feather in their proverbial cap. It would be nice if it were true that even if the arresting police department were dishonest or negligent, at least the prosecutor would always be honest and efficient enough to drop the charge if she realized the arrest was not warranted, but that is just not the way the system tends to work.

It's not (yet) 100% this way. Sometimes prosecutors will have your back, and furthermore, sometimes cops won't arrest you if they really are not that sure you are the culprit they are looking for,; but, “sometimes,” is not very reassuring when we're talking about your freedom. The last thing you want to do is to give these people anything they can use to try to pin the blame on you. They have big work loads and are under pressure to make arrests or get convictions.23)

If somebody you didn't like was murdered, you have nothing to gain by verifying their suspicions that you did not like the victim. Rather than having them think you are an honest person, all you will do is increase their belief that you are the murderer when you tell them; yes you can't stand that person's guts, and yes, you aren't the least bit unhappy to hear she died, but no, you didn't chop her up with a rusty axe.

When the cops says that she heard that you and the murder victim had been known to shout at each other in work place arguments, do not verify that. Your only answer should be something along the line that years ago you promised your lawyer to never speak to police without her presence, and you're sorry, but you are not going to go back on your word.

Not Just An Attorney But My Attorney

When you say you will not speak without your attorney, make sure you say it like that. Don't say, an attorney. Say, my attorney. First off, you should have an attorney you know who you can call at a moment's notice. However, even if you don't, there is no need for them to know that.

When you speak about your attorney, it brings them images of people who have great attorneys who come in and get their clients released. Sometimes they even sue the cops for false arrest, and make them spend hours in uneasy depositions.

When you keep saying, “my attorney,” it makes them think you have good reason to be so keen on her. If they ask who your attorney is, you can say that will become evident if they arrest you. That would be a good time to ask, “Are you arresting me, or am I free to go?”

Don't Change Your Mind If They Take You In

The worst thing you can do if they take you in, either for questioning or if they actually arrest you then and there, is to change your mind once you get there and decide to talk to them, in hopes that your change of attitude will entice them to let you go. At that point, you need to increase your resolve to not speak without an attorney.

Ask Them Questions

There are a few questions you should ask them. One is, “Am I under arrest:” Another is, “Am I being detained?” A third one is,”Am I free to go?“ You may wonder what possible good it can do to ask any of those questions. First, it could hasten the time when they realize they need to either shit or get off the pot. In this analogy, shitting would be arresting you, and getting off the pot would mean letting you go on your way. If you are wondering what good does it do to get them to hurry up and arrest you, the answer is simple. The sooner you are arrested, the sooner you can call your attorney and start the process to work on regaining your freedom.

Secondly, the very fact that you are asking such questions, further signals to them that you are a citizen who has some legal training and knows your remaining rights as a citizen. It's a red flag for them against abusing you, for fear of reprisal in criminal or civil court.

Here is a great video that had to be released to the public because it was from the cops' dash camera. The cops are talking about an illegal traffic stop they made at the behest of superiors, that they had done on a person who knew his rights. In fact, this person had sued the police department in the past and won in a case for violating his rights. Evidently, the cop had experienced some rather unpleasant moments in the deposition process.

You could tell the fear in one of the cop's voice, due to the possible consequences that could come for the improper traffic stop he had just made. At the end of that clip is a great moment where he realizes he had failed to turn the dash cam off, knowing that meant that the admission of wrong doing they had just made was going to become public record.

If you are dealing with bad cops who are willing to arrest somebody for a crime whose guilt they do not believe, but who have enough evidence to possibly get a conviction, then they are going to realize that their best chance of getting a bogus conviction is with somebody who doesn't know and exercise her rights. You are infinitely better off sending out signals that you know your rights, than you are sending out signals that you don't know your rights.

Never Waive Your Rights

If a cop ever asks for permission to do something, like to do a search, don't give it to her. If she doesn't need your permission, she wouldn't ask you. If she asks, and you don't give it to her, but she searches anyway, chances are good that even if she finds something illegal, the evidence will be thrown out of court because you violated your right to unreasonable search and seizure.

Even if you believe there is nothing illegal in your car, for instance, it is not in your best interest to allow cops to search it. You don't know if someone who was in your car may have left something in it. Perhaps even a valet parking gal accidentally dropped a pain pill she had a prescription for between your cushions. You just don't know. Don't take a chance.

Beware Of Polite Police Offering Free Safety Inspections

[Pictured Above: This is what happened to sweet old Mrs. Stewart because she didn't say no to cops who asked if they could do a safety inspection of her home. She should have never even given her name, let alone allowed them to come inside.]

There's a really good video on YouTube where actors reenact an all too familiar scenario. Two cops knock on a door. An old woman answers. The cops announce they are doing door to door safety canvassing to help stop gang violence. They are if they can check the house to make sure there are guns that tenets are unaware of.

The woman, always respectful and appreciative to law enforcement officer allows them to go ahead, saying she is sure there are no guns. One of them finds a small baggy of marijuana. The woman says she is surprised and knows nothing about it. She suggests one of the kids or their friends may have lost it in there but assures the officers it is not hers.

As you might imagine, she gets arrested, all because she allowed the cops to come in. In a follow up video, we learn she is trying to fight eviction because she lives in government supported housing which comes with automatic eviction for any drug arrest. All of that unpleasantness and stress could have been avoided by telling police they can't come in without a warrant.

Just Don't Do It

Cops may present themselves at your door as being there to help you. Don't believe it for a second. They want to find anything they can to arrest you and make your life a living hell on earth. Do not, under any circumstances, voluntarily let police come into your home. Do not, under any circumstances, voluntarily give police anything they ask of you.

Whatever you do, don't worry about hurting their feelings by turning down their offers to “help.” You would never stop kicking yourself if you ended up being jailed, let alone, losing your property, all because you were worried about hurting the feelings of some cop.

Did you see the movie, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? If not, you really should, but I digress. The bad guy catches the good guy snooping on him. Bad guy realizes that good guy is suspicious that he's the bad guy. Good guy, is pretty much convinced that bad guy is the bad guy, yet when bad guy calls out to good guy and invites him in to have a drink, good guy, instead of running for his life, goes in, on the off chance that his suspicions are wrong, and that he would inadvertently hurt the person's feelings.

It's nice if you are the kind of person who tries to avoid hurting the feelings of others, but don't let that get in the way of your judgement. Always consider the risk/reward factors. If the reward is you don't hurt somebody's feelings by turning down their offer to supposedly help you, but the risk is your freedom and/or your property, you should definitely let go of the reward. Let the risk be that you might have hurt somebody's feelings, and let the reward be that you have remained free and still own and have use of your property.

What About Traffic Stops?

You may be wondering when it come to traffic stops how you are supposed to not say a word to the officer. You will probably need to say some things other than the fact that under the advice of counsel you will not be answering questions.

For instance, you want to say words and show actions that help to keep the cop from feeling threatened. That's why you should turn your ignition off and have your hands toward the top of the steering wheel. If it is night, turn on the interior lights.

Do not reach over to get your insurance paper and registration until she asks you for them. In fact, when she does call for them, tell her they are wherever the are (in the glove box, etc.) and then reach for them slowly.

I Have A Confession

I don't always follow my own advice, yet, but I imagine I will start doing it soon. For instance, if the cop asks me where I'm coming from and going to, I tend to pussy out and tell her, but I really don't want to. It's none of her business. I rationalize wimping out like that because she's not investigating a crime or viewing me as a suspect, so the need for silence is not great.

My worry has been that announcing the fact that I won't be talking will make the traffic stop go worse than it otherwise would. You know, perhaps it pisses the cop off, so she does a tire inspection with the penny in the tread, ending up with me getting tickets I wouldn't have otherwise gotten.

My goal is to be let back on the road as soon as possible. If I piss her off, I worry that perhaps she will then find excuses to delay the stop or look for excuses to arrest me. I am also hoping that I might get let off with a warning and not be ticketed, and I realize that refusing to speak is virtually a guaranteed way to lose any chance of not being ticketed.

What I want to do, and may very well start doing in the future, is answering the question of where I'm coming from with the simple statement that I'm going to be remaining silent. She may consider that as me being disrespectful. If she thinks that's disrespectful, it's a good thing she I don't say what I'm really thinking in those moments… “Why? What difference does it make where I'm going or where I've been? I want you to tell me why you pulled me over instead of me answering your personal questions that are, frankly, none of your damn business.”

For all you know, a crime may have been committed in the area you were coming from. When you answer their question about where you had just come from, you could be making yourself a suspect if the criminals are still at large. There is nothing good for you, in answering that question.

The same principle holds for where you are going to. Some people do say it's none of the cop's business, but I don't see myself taking that tack. You could simply say, “I don't answer questions,” or, Sorry, but on the advice of my lawyer, I don't answer questions.” You could ask why, and then when they respond, you could say, “Truthfully, I've seen YouTube videos where cops speak to a class of law students, and they say it's never in anybody's best personal interest to answer questions from police officers, so since a cop gave that advice, I decided I'm going to follow it.”

Do You Know Why I Pulled You Over?

Cops love to ask if you know why they pulled you over. They're trying to get you to confess. It usually works. In fact, sometimes it alerts cops to infractions they hadn't even noticed.

There are some laws where the infraction comes with stiffer penalties if the state can prove that you were knowingly in violation. The easiest proof of all is a confession. Never play game of answering that infamous cop question. When the officer asks if you realize why she pulled you over, it's the perfect time to set the tone of your demeanor for the stop.

“I'm sorry officer but I'm going to be remaining silent,” or, “On the advice of counsel, I don't answer questions without my attorney,” are two excellent ways to answer. Another good thing to be ready to say at the drop of a proverbial hat is, “I don't consent to any searches.” Of course, you may not want to volunteer that out of the blue. Wait until the officer asks if she minds if she searches your car.

I know what you are thinking. If she asks, “Do you have anything illegal in your car?,” why not tell her the truth since you don't have anything illegal in your car. Why challenge her by saying, “Officer, I promised my lawyer to never speak to police without her, so I'm choosing to remain silent?,” when you could simply answer, “No officer, I don't”?

In the past, I would have simply said no I don't, but the times they are a-changin'.24) Many cops are looking to lock people up regardless of the fact they don't deserve it. They tend to pick on people who don't know or choose not to exercise their rights. Signaling you know your rights is more than likely motivation for them to pick on someone else.

A part of me might want to answer the question about having anything illegal with a question of my own. I am tempted to say, “Why do you ask that? Has anybody ever actually said, yes?” Of course, it probably will lead to the cop reasking the question.

I might then say, “I'm hoping you don't take this personally, because I appreciate you for being a cop and putting your life on the line every day, but I made a promise to my attorney not to talk to police without her, so at this point, I'm going to exercise my right to remain silent.”

The cop might then say, “Why? That makes me think you are doing something illegal. If you have nothing to hide, you would talk.” I would simply keep going back to, “I'm sorry, but without my lawyer, I won't be able to speak with you.”

How Much Have You Had To Drink Tonight?

One thing you should realize is that if you were pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence, you are pretty much screwed, no matter what. Cops can take you in based merely upon their suspicion. Moreover, cops routinely lie. Many cops, possibly even most cops, would think nothing about saying they smelled alcohol on your breath, even if you've been temperate your entire life.

Saying you had a glass of wine at dinner is simply giving them more inspiration to continue working on evidence to not just arrest you, but to make sure you are convicted. If you spend some time on police websites, you will see that the best action you can take to prevent a conviction of any crime is to not speak to them or cooperate at all. They give advice to each other on how they get people to feel comfortable enough to cooperate. Running off at the mouth is the surest way of getting yourself in hot water, even though you may really be completely innocent.

In the case of suspicion of DUI, tell them you do not consent to any of the examinations. If they tell you to follow their finger with your eyes, tell them you will not do that because you do not consent to any examinations of any type.

If you want, you can add something to the effect of, “I say this with no disrespect to you, and I want you to know I will not resist or be a problem to you in any way, but under the advice of counsel, I don't consent to any searches, examinations and I will not be speaking to you without my attorney present.”

Depending on your state, you will get your license suspended for a period of time, for instance a year, simply for refusing to submit to any tests. However, you will almost always not be convicted for DUI, unless you are in a state that has mandatory blood tests for people who refuse the other tests. It's true, the DUI laws are so unconstitutional that even without a conviction, you will still be forced to endure a number of hassles like taking classes and/or group therapy and the like, but if you were convicted, it would be more hassles and more costs.

Furthermore, each DUI conviction come with more intense punishment, penalties and fines. Not being convicted is important for you now, and possibly in the future. Of course you should not drive under the influence, but with blood alcohol levels now at .08 percent and moves to make it lower, having a glass of wine at dinner could put you at risk, even though it doesn't affect your driving.

Why Coach Drunks How To Get Away WIth DUI?

I remember a DJ in on KROQ in the early 80s, Sam Fries (prounounced, Sam Freeze), whose nickname was, The Fries Disease. He used to sign off his show, “Remember, never drink and drive, but if you do, watch out for the highway patrol.” I think of that when someone tells me I shouldn't be giving advice to thwart cops investigations into DUI.

I don't think people should drive under the influence of mind altering drugs. Luckily, most people who drive under the influence are not drunk as skunks. When people do that, then I hope they got popped and that the experience helps them get to the point of realizing they need help.

My advice is not likely to help people who are so utterly inebriated. Even if they remember not to speak and to not provide consent for examinations (which is rather unlikely), there will usually be so much evidence, like video of them slurring their speech, stumbling around, bloodshot eyes and the like, the state can get a conviction.

I'm concerned about the fact that cops often pull people over for infractions that are not indicative of DUI, yet they still ask if the person has been drinking. They are fishing. The state makes a ton of money on DUIs and that should never be the motivating factor in a DUI investigation. Answering in the affirmative, when a cop asks if you have had anything to drink is a sure fire way to piques the cop's interest in escalating the tail light ticket into a full blown DUI arrest.

Refusing to answer might very well do the same thing, so the other option is to say no, but lying to police, is in itself a crime. If you are pulled over for erratic driving and you have been drinking, the chances are great that it's going to be obvious you are lying.

You Should Have A Problem With Cops Fishing

Do you enjoy living in a community where cops pull you over for no reason and start fishing for something to arrest you for? Do you think that makes your world better? Do you want cops to follow you, waiting for you to make a traffic infraction? There is nothing wrong with doing what you can to protect yourself from cops trying to make your life miserable. Beware of cops who are taking you on a fishing expedition.

When they ask where you are coming from, they are also fishing. When they ask where you are headed to, they are fishing. When they ask if you have had anything to drink tonight, they are fishing. When they ask if you have anything illegal in your car, they're fishing.

The more questions you answer, the more likely you are going to say something, that, at least in the mind of the cop, incriminates you. If you say you are going home after a party at work that was to celebrate your boss's retirement, you have just incriminated yourself in Cop World for DUI, even if you've been sober for the past three and half decades. If you tell them you are coming from a restaurant where you met up with friends and watched Monday Night Football and scarfed down dozens of chicken wings, you've just incriminated yourself.

And it can go beyond self incrimination. Many cops are mentally unstable. Giving them personal information could lead to triggering their mental instability. Let's say you answer that you're coming from church. That could lead to them asking what church. Maybe the cop was molested at a church, for all you know, and if it's the same denomination, she's going to take it out on you.

It does you no good for the cop to know where you are coming from. You may be coming from a friend's house. They'll ask you where the friend lived. If there was a crime in that vicinity and the culprits were not caught, placing yourself in that area, makes you a suspect. Don't let fishing cops reel you in.

Also, for those who are offended by me giving advice that someone might use to avoid a DUI arrest, keep in mind that most cops are guilty of driving after going out to dinner and having some wine. If they were pulled over for some minor infraction, once they show their badge, they are not going to be asked how much they had to drink or where they are coming from. It's highly unlikely they will even be ticketed.

I definitely recommend that if someone is going to have any alcohol, it's in their best interest to not drive. However, that is more to protect themselves from unfairly getting busted for DUI. Truly drunk drivers should be busted, but I'm not going to withhold important information from my online and offline conversations designed to help good people retain their freedom, just because drunk drivers exist.

The organization, MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is responsible for a lot of the desecration of the fourth amendment to the Constitution that is now common place. It was a very bad precedent, illegally and unconstitutionally upheld by the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States.) 25) According to the Constitution, police are supposed to have, at the very least, probable cause to pull over drivers and investigate them for crime, but MADD activists helped to inspire DUI checkpoints where people, at random, are stopped and checked out for DUI.

No Refusal Blood Tests

The ramifications of drunk driving are horrific, but desecrating the Constitution is even more so. The fact that bad things happen is never an excuse to dismantle the rights that are outlined in the United States Constitution. It is a slippery slope whenever that happens. Nowadays, in some states, DUI checkpoints are called, no refusal checkpoints 26) If a driver refuses an breathalyzer test, she will have blood drawn against her will. 27) If she doesn't keep her arm still for the needle to penetrate her vein, cops will gladly apply excessive force.28)
Remember the slippery slope. Right now this just some of the states on, primarily at special DUI checkpoints, but left curtailed, don't be surprised to find most or all states adopting it with no limits.

Checkpoint DNA Sample Taking

[OK, that picture is not from a DNA checkpoint, but it was a checkpoint. Some cops had been shot at, and the suspects were still at large. As serious as that is, it still does not give cops the right to just go up to cars and point there muzzles 3 inches from people's faces. It's pretty freeking outrageous.]

In recent years we've seen the advent of DNA checkpoints. 29) It's not even at DUI checkpoints. There are cops present who flag cars to stop, like at DUI checkpoints, but instead of cops asking if you've had anything to drink, they stand behind people in white coats who either ask or tell you to supply them with a DNA sample, which could be a cheek swab or a blood test.30)

Supposedly it's voluntary, or at least it was when they first started this bizarre, dystopian and illegal scene, but many of the victims (and yes, that is exactly how people feel when dealing with this) say they didn't perceive it as voluntary at all. It evidently differs in that way, from one checkpoint to another, or maybe one state to another.

Sometimes, they are enticed with cash offers; $10 for a cheek swab and $50 for a blood draw.31) In many instances motorists report that they were never told it was voluntary or that they would be free to leave if they refused, and they say they certainly were never offered money.

In all these instances, the best thing to do is to refuse to consent to any tests and ask if you are being detained by law enforcement officers. Always ask if you are free to leave. Ask it over and over. Nothing positive is gong to come from you giving your bodily fluids on the side of road coming home from the Piggly Wiggly.

What Will You Say If Or When The Obamacare Navigators Come A Knockin'?

Unless Republicans grow some gonads and overturn or otherwise dismantle Obama-don't-care, aka, the Unaffordable Care Act, it is, in all likelihood not long before the minimum wage door to door canvassers will be knocking on your door, asking you to verify if you have enrolled in the program. My intention is to tell them I refuse to talk to them and to get off my property.

The Global Warming (Hoax) Canvassers

That is the same tack I intend to take in the event that the global warming hoax police come around asking to come in so they can inspect my home to ensure that it is up to some Agenda 21 sustainable living code, or what not.

Our Reactions To The Times We Are Living In

We are living in ridiculous times. Local governments are enacting laws to prevent people from growing their own fruits and vegetables. School districts are banning parents from packing lunches to send with their children. Six year old children are getting class E misdemeanor criminal tickets for talking in class, that is, when they are not handcuffed and sent to juvenile jail.

The more we simply accept this kind of out of control government behavior, the more we are like that frog in the pot of water being slowly heated until we find ourselves boiling. We have to stand up and take issue with the wanton destruction of our freedoms and our way of life, even though it scares us and takes us out of our comfort zone.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor, please seriously consider just saying no to these people as a way to start retaining your rights and waking up to what is happening.

The powers that be are looking to push forward with the cashless society so they can have total tracking and control of the citizens. We need to use cash and only use trackable transactions when we have to. Just like our rights, we must use it or lose it. Government and corporations have access to files that show everything you buy. It's not their business. Faction of the government want to imprison you. You could buy something for legal purposes, but it could generate a red flag because crimes are sometimes related to the product. You can start a huge surveillance program, jam packed with cops who are convinced you are breaking the law, just by not using cash. Innocent people do get arrested and convicted. Don't supply the rope anybody needs to hang you with. Corporations want to know everything you buy, so they can try to sell you things that fall within your interest. They want to know how much you pay to see if you are a sucker or a shopper. If you are a sucker, you don't know what the low price points are and you will be marketed to with higher price points. Quit supplying corporations with data about your lifestyle. Use cash whenever you possibly can.

If you are thinking that it is reasonable for cops to stop and ask people for their ID in order to make sure they don't have arrest warrants, you are sadly mistaken. They can't run your ID without first having met a legal situation that allows them to do so. They can pick you out because of how you look, or because they think they have psychic detective powers. They can't set up check points and randomly have certain parties supply their identification so they can be run.

Solitary confinement drives people insane. It's considered a very real form of torture. The irony is that this man was depressed. Cell mates told the guards that he said he wished he was dead. There answer was to put him in the solitary torture chamber, which is guaranteed to make a depressed person much more depressed, and to make a person who may have thought about suicide, to really long for death desperately.

The Reagan's drank the liquid drug, alcohol, which is the recreational drug that does more harm on the planet than any other recreational drug, by far, and probably all other drugs combined. It's hard to imagine telling people to just say no to drugs while you are doing drugs yourself. Moreover, pharmaceutical drugs are as big a problem than the kind of drugs Nancy Reagan was telling us to just say no to. I'd be willing to put my life on my contention that she also took plenty of pharmaceutical drugs, including mood altering ones. The hypocrisy she showed in her anti drug effort would be laughable, were it not so sad.

Conservatives have long said that sexual education classes can and many times do lead to early sexual experiences among teens, but they don't look at evidence the sexual abstinence programs can have the exact same effect.

There is more than ample reason to argue that at the upper hierarchy of federal decision making regarding the school system, these gender identity programs are not actually started with good intentions. That is to say, this is another part of the vast scientific social control program, breaking cultural sets and fracturing human and societal norms. These control freaks are out to create gender identity issues on a mass scale that would otherwise not exist. Without the social engineering interference, gender identity issues would be a small fraction of what it is now. By the way, on the local level, the administration of these programs is often where the good intentions are. The people who are teaching inclusion and acceptance tend to come from a beautiful and loving space, and they have no idea they are helping globalist social engineers create chaos, as abnormal becomes the new normal.

I mention the pressure and work loads of these individuals not to excuse them for railroading people. There is no excuse. I say it to help convey what they are dealing with and why they are all to often willing to be scumbags.